Star Wars tends to suffer from a style over substance approach to science-fiction -- the walkers being way up there on such issues. I'd stick with the M3 (-A3 version preferred though), and technologically progress up to the AFVs in Hammers Slammers rather than Star Wars walkers.

Just for hypothetical.... prefer an M1A-2 Abrams platoon of 4 or a bunch of those tracked vehicles seen in The Terminator???

We don't really have any way to evaluate the tracked vehicles seen in The Terminator. However. given the incredible technological progress and capabilities demonstrated by the Terminators I think it's safe to say that the tracked vehicles we catch a few glimpses of are far superior to any current generation MBT, including the M1A2 in terms of firepower, protection and mobility. Additionally, since they don't have to carry a human crew they will be able to be more efficient in use of space for armor, gun, ammo, fuel, etc. The real question is, without SkyNet just how effective is the "brain" in the vehicle going to be?

Also consider the range of weapons in SW.. Sucked.

Since the Terminators were totally independent of SkyNet, i.e. able to function perfectly well even before SkyNet went online, I think we can assume the same of the other autonomous units. Regards

The hardware seen in movies like "Terminator" and the Star Wars series are mainly intended to look impressive and scary. Note that most such things are taller than the recommended operational HAG of a helcopter gunship. Skylining yourself like that is invariably fatal on a real battlefield. The same holds true for "BattleMechs" or any anime'-style "Giant Robo"- if the enemy can see you, he can probably kill you. My preference would be for a troop of the "Panzers" in David Drake's "Hammer's Slammers" stories- but I think I'd prefer railguns to the "powerguns". Even if they worked as Drake hypothesizes (and I'm not sure they wouldn't) they seem to be a bit shy in the armor-penetration department. Of course, most SF weaponry seems to have that problem- otherwise, how could unarmored heroes like Skywalker & Co. survive to do their derring-do?.

When it comes to Star Wars (and similar) weapons vs. real contemporary tech, I suspend my disbelief by assuming that there are reasons for the obvious weaknesses of the Sci-Fi stuff. So, for instance, I just assume that all of the Stars Wars stuff is armored or Force-Fielded or whatever against conventional (not directed energy) weapons. So while the blasters on Star Wars stuff may seem ineffectual, you can assume that a 30mm or HEAT wouldn't do a damn thing. And since their sensors seem to be able to detect life forms, etc. from extreme distances, maybe stealth is sacrificed for speed and mobility.

hmm does suspension of disbelief cover the two logs squishing it like it was tinfoil? gotta figure if its that tough a guy with a gimpy or an rpg would do it a wonder of good hehe.

hmm... good point. I'm beginning to suspect that Star Wars is just movie...? Is that possible!?

if that's true my friend phil is in for a hell of a jolt to his world view.